032-NLR-NLR-V-74-THE-QUEEN-v.-J.-A.-GOONETILLEKE.pdf
1 IS
iVhe Queen v. Qoonclilleke
1970Present: de Kretser, J.THE QUEEN v. J. A. GO ON ETILLEKES. C. S26/69—M. G■ KuUyapitiya, 44853
Evidence Ordinance (Cap. 14)—Section 24—■" Person in authoritySection 24 of the Evidence Ordinance reads ns follows :—
“ A confession mado by un accused person is irrelevant in ft criminalproceeding if the making of the confession appears to tho court to havo booncaused by any inducement, threat or promiso having reference to tho chargeagainst tho accused person, proceeding from a porson in authority, or pro-ceeding from another person in the presence- of a person in authority and withhis sanction, and which inducement, threat or promise is sufficient in thoopinion of tho court to give the accused person grounds, which would appearto him reasonable, for supposing that by making it ho would gain anyadvantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to thoproceedings against- him.”
Held, that, for tho purposes of tho Section, tho Superintendent of an estateis a porson in authority over an accused porson who is employed under hint ns awatclxor of tho estate.
(1065) 62 Ar. L. R. 573.
(104S) 40 N. L. R. 312.
DE KRETSER, 3 .—The Queen v. Goonetillc/.cIIS
OrDER made in the course of trial before'the Supreme Court-
Tilak Mara pa-net-, Crown Counsel, for the prosecution.
Eurdiey Perera, with B. Kur uk.nla-ralne and E. Bahia yoke (assignedfor the accused.
November 24, 1970- did Khetseh, J.—
The Crown in this case seeks to lead in evidence the following passageswhich appear in the deposition of a witness who is the Superintendentof an estate of which the accused was the watcher :—
“ The closest watch hut to block No. 2 is also about a quarter of amile. The accused came running up to me shouting out * MahattayaMahattaya ’ and then I got out and asked him what happened. Fromthe way he came I thought that something had happened at that time.”
" I told the accused not to get excited and to tell me exactly whathappened and that I will look after his interest- I said that becauseI thought that the accused was excited. I told that I will safeguardhim and to tell me exactly what happened.”
“ I told the accused not to worry, tell me everything and I will seethat you will not be charged. I am the person -who is in charge ofthis estate and the accused is under me. The accused told me that hecaught the deceased in the act of stealing coconuts.”
” Subsequently I made a statement to the Police. I told the accusednot to get excited and to tell exactly what happened and that I willsafeguard him, and that he will not be charged because I am awarethat if a thief is caught on a coconut estate and if he tried to assaultthe watcher the watcher is entitled to defend himself.”
The defence objects on the ground that the witness who speaks to thematter is the Superintendent under whom the aecused_is.an_employeeand that the evidence is inadmissible in view of the provisions of Section24 of the Evidence~Ordinance which reads as follows :—
“ A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminalproceeding if the making of the confession appears to the court to havebeen caused by any inducement, threat, or promise having referenceto the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a personin authority, or proceeding from another person in the presence of aperson in authority and with his sanction and which inducementthreat, or promise is sufficient in the opinion of the court to give theaccused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, forsupposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoidany. evil of a temporal nature in reference to tho proceedings againsthim.”
120
DE KBETSER, J.—The Queen v. Goonelillcka
Counsel for the Crown admits " there is amide material in thedepositions that every inducement- and promise had been held out to theaccused to make the confession he did ”, but he submits that theSuperintendent, for the purposes of Section 24, is not a person inauthority, for he submits that the phrase has been interpreted to meana person who has the power to interfere with the criminal proceedings.He submits that the Superintendent was not in a position, even if hewanted to, to avoid a prosecution being launched and that the proof ofthat is that a prosecution has in fact been launched.
It appears to me that it is necessary to recognize that a person inauthority can, generally speaking, be as much one who has authorityor control over an employee as one who has authority over proceedings ora prosecution against him, and it appears to me that an inducementgiven by one in authority in either of these capacities would renderthe resulting confession inadmissible.
In Ceylon in the case of See n't v. AUtyctna1, where the facts were thatthe Superintendent of the estate had told the accused who was a laboureron the estate that he would do liis best to get the Magistrate to let himoff with a fine if she pleaded guilty, Ennis, J- upheld the contention thatthe provisions of Section 24 applied and the confession was irrelevantfor the making of it was caused by the inducement proceeding from theperson in authority over the labourer, that is the Superintendent.
In the case of Hodgson i. George. -. w here the confession was inducedby the following words addressed to the accused, a tea-maker on theestate, by the Superintendent "you had belter tel! the truth and if youdo, nothing will happen to you ”, Wood Renton. J. upheld the contentionthat the confession was inadmissible as it was induced by a person inauthority over the accused.
The true test appears to me to be whether the prisoner might reasonablysuppose that the person giving the inducement was capable of influencingthe course of the. prosecution and not whether the person offeringthe inducement was in fact capable of influencing flic prosecution, and I cansee no reason, in the absence of any definition of the words “ person inauthoritj- ” in the context of Section 24, to consider that they refer onlyto a person who has the power to interfere with the criminal proceedings.
In the case of King v. Weeruiam>/ 3 Moseley, J. cited w ith approvalthe dictum, of Sargcant, C.J. in Rex v. Xavurogc Dudabhai :: the testwould seem to be had the person authority to interfere with the matterand any concern or interest in it would appear sufficienttogive him thatauthority I am of the view that the evidence the Crown seeks tolead is inadmissible in that it has been elicited by inducement given by aperson in a position of authority over the accused.
< ’oiiJcx-fit'H ruled iitadhtissiblc in evidence.
< (ioJO) s c. ir. ft. j;j.■ (irioo) i> x. n. >73.
* (10 JJ) -IS X. L. It. 2/2.